We do not have the unadjusted Walker recall exit poll numbers. If we did, we could do an analysis similar to the following.

The 2010 Florida and Ohio Governor exit polls were adjusted to match the vote counts – and red-shifted from the Democrat to the Republican.

In Florida, Sink (D) won the exit poll by 50.8-45.4% but lost the recorded vote to Scott by 48.4-49.6%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,150 respondents. The margin of error was 2.3%. Sink had a 99% win probability.

In Ohio, Strickland (D) won the exit poll by 49.9-47.4% but lost the vote to Kasich by 49.8-47.7%, a 4.6% margin discrepancy. There were 3,305 respondents. The margin of error was 2.2%. Strickland had an 88% win probability.

In order to match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to change ALL demographic category weightings from the unadjusted to the Final.

The final exit polls show the adjusted weightings for the key demographic categories. But keep in mind that similar changes had to have been made in ALL demographic crosstabs.

Since we have the unadjusted weightings from the Roper site, we can estimate the “pristine” unadjusted vote shares by “goal-seeking” (trial and error). Then we can calculate the changes in weightings and vote shares that were required to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote. These are shown on the right side of the Ohio and Florida worksheet screens.

Why is it that the pundits always assume that the exit poll discrepancies are always the result of faulty polling? You would think that after 50 years, the exit pollsters would get it right. And they do get it right, but very few know it.

They get it right in the unadjusted exit polls. But they just keep on adjusting the polls anyway – to match the vote. That is what they get paid for. Otherwise, they would no longer be polling for the National Election Pool.

So what is getting it “right”? Is it forcing the exit polls to match the recorded vote – even when the election is rigged? Or is it by declaring that the uncontaminated, unadjusted exit poll stands by itself – and is a close approximation to the True Vote.

When you think about it, we can’t expect the exit pollsters to ever say that their surveys indicate election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the true margin of error is exceeded.

The question to ask is: why are the category weights and vote shares changed in the first place? But we already know the answer. It’s what the pollsters and the media won’t talk about. It’s because of election fraud. If they didn’t adjust the numbers, the media would have to report them. And the last thing the media wants to do is to discuss is how voting machines are programmed to miscount the votes.

But how do we prove it?

The Ultimate Smoking Gun: 1988-2008 state presidential exit polls

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections there were 274 state exit polls, of which 226 red-shifted from the poll to the vote for the Republican and 48 shifted to the Democrat. Assuming no fraud, approximately 150 would be expected for each. The probability P that 252 would red-shift to the Republican is:
P = Binomdist (63, 75, .5, false) ^ 4
P = 2.3E-37
P = 1 in 4 trillion trillion trillion

The margin of error was exceeded in 126 of the 274 polls (only 14 would normally be expected at the 95% confidence level). The probability P is ZERO:
P =Poisson (126, .05*274, false)

The margin of error was exceeded in 123 of exit polls in favor of GOP (only 7 would be expected). The probability P is:
P= 5E-106 = Poisson (123,.025*274, false)

The following table summarizes a) the number of state elections which there was a Republican red-shift from the exit poll to the vote, b) the number of states (n) in which the margin of error was exceeded in favor of the Republican, c) the probability that n states would red-shift beyond the MoE, d) the Democratic unadjusted aggregate state exit poll share, e) the Democratic recorded share, f) the deviation between the exit poll and recorded vote.

To believe the NJ recorded vote requires several implausible assumptions:
1) McCain voter turnout exceeded Obama turnout by 65-55%.
2) Corzine had a 73% share of Obama voters; Christie had 20%.
3) Corzine had a 5% share of McCain voters; Christie had 87%.

The number of returning voters is a function of the previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and estimated turnout. The 2008 Presidential True Vote is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. Obama won the NJ recorded vote by 57-42%. But he won the unadjusted exit poll by 64-35% (1582 respondents). He won the True Vote Model by 61-38%.

It is important to view the effects of alternative assumptions. The Sensitivity Analysis table displays various vote share scenarios. The following scenarios assume 61.7% McCain turnout and 57% Obama turnout.

If Corzine had 50% of new voters and 50% of returning third-party voters and…
1- 5% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 70,000 votes (48.1-45.1%).
2- 9% of McCain and 81% of Obama voters, he wins by 248,000 votes.
3- 8% of McCain and 79% of Obama voters, he wins by 177,000 votes.
4- 7% of McCain and 77% of Obama voters, he wins by 106,000 votes.

The True Vote Model is predicated on determining a) a feasible estimate of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of how voters in the current election cast votes.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote.

They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in virtually every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It’s ten years and counting since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

The conventional wisdom is that the 2010 midterms were a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than in 1994. True, the party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote in virtually every election. There is no reason to suspect that 2010 was any different.

The GOP won Governor races in FL, OH, PA, WI and NJ (2009). They won the official recorded vote. But did they win the True Vote?

The True Vote Model (TVM) indicates that the Democrats very likely won FL, OH, PA and NJ – and may have won WI. Returning voters are based on the 2008 True Vote, not the recorded vote. Average 70% returning McCain voter turnout is assumed, compared to just 62% for returning Obama voters. Obama’s True Vote share in the five states was 4.3% higher than his recorded share.

Florida
Scott (Rep) won by 49.6-48.4% (61,000 votes).
Sink won the exit poll (3156 respondents) by 50.8-45.4% (282,000 votes).
The TVM indicates that Sink won by 317,000 votes with a 52.5% share.
If Sink had just 86% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, she wins by 17,000.

Ohio
Kasich (Rep) won by 77,000 votes (49.8-47.8%).
Strickland (Dem) won the exit poll (3305 respondents):49.9-47.4% (101,000).
Strickland won the True Vote by 338,000 (52.2%).
If Strickland had 81% of Obama voters and 11% of McCain’s, he wins by 51,000.

Pennsylvania
Corbett (Rep) won by 357,000 recorded votes.
Corbett won the unadjusted exit poll: 54.3-45.3%.
If Onorato(Dem) had 83% of Obama voters and 8% of McCain’s, he wins by 83,000.

Wisconsin
Walker (Rep) won by 105,000 recorded votes (52-47%).
Walker won the unadjusted exit poll: 52.4-46.0%.
If Barrett (Dem) had 87% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 28,000.

New Jersey (2009)
Christie (Rep) won by 99,000 votes (48.7-45.6%).
If Corzine (Dem) had 77% of Obama voters and 7% of McCain’s, he wins by 76,000.

The True Vote Model determines a) a feasible estimate of the breakout of returning voters from the prior election and b) an estimate of vote shares in the current. The number of returning voters is a function of previous election total votes cast, voter mortality and an estimated turnout.

The 2008 Presidential election is used as the basis for calculating returning voters. The vote shares are derived from the final exit polls. Annual voter mortality is 1.25%. Given the 2010 total vote, new voters are calculated as:
New 2010 voters = 2010 vote – returning 2008 voter turnout

The number of third-party 2008 voters is given. But the 2010 exit polls indicated that there were more returning third-party voters than were still alive. This was also the case in 2008. According to the Final 2008 National Exit Poll, there were 5 million returning third-party voters – but there were only 1.2 million recorded third-party votes in 2004. Which is correct?

In the 2010 exit polls, returning third-party and New voter percentages are given but corresponding vote shares are N/A. Inquiring minds would like to know why. In order to match the recorded 2010 vote, the GOP candidate had to win 55-60% of new and returning third-party (Other) voters. In the True Vote Model, returning third-party and new voters were assumed to be split equally between the Democrat and the Republican.

Mainstream media pundits never mention the fact that it is standard operating procedure for exit pollsters to force all final national and state exit polls to match the recorded vote. They accept the recorded vote as gospel and never question the official results. But the evidence is overwhelming that in every election, the recorded vote does not equal the True Vote because of systemic election fraud. It is ten years since Florida 2000 – and the beat goes on.

The Final Illinois 2010 Exit Poll indicated that 56% of the votes recorded were cast by returning Obama voters and 38% by returning McCain voters.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The Final Exit Poll is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004, the impossible Bush 2000 voter 43% share of the mix was insufficient to match the recorded vote; the exit pollsters also had to increase Bush vote shares.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote.

Assume a) 61% turnout of Obama voters, b) 69% McCain turnout and c) an even spit between Gianoulias and Kirk among new and returning third-party voters. The True Vote Model indicates that if Giannoulias captured just 82% of returning Obama voters, he won by approximately 115,000 votes. With an 80% share of returning Obama voters, he won by 33,000 votes.

As in the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania senate exit polls, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the Illinois exit poll indicated that returning 2008 third-party voters and new voters each comprised 3% (108,000) of the vote. There were only 72,000 third-party voters in 2008. Approximately 48,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.3%. The DNV increased from to 4.1%.

The Final 2010 Illinois Exit Poll is eerily similar to the Wisconsin amd Pennsylvania polls. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote in each election. Feingold in Wisconsin, Sestak in Pennsylvanua and Giannoulias in Illinois each won the “When Decided” category in the Final. But they lost in the other categories.

Giannoulias had a 54-37% lead among the 29% of voters who decided in the month before the election. He won the “When Decided” category by 49.4-46.1%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 44-31% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have an edge in Party-ID. Kirk needed an implausible 61% of Independents.

Giannoulias tied Kirk among the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters in the “How Voted in 2008” category,

At the same time, to believe the Illinois recorded vote, you must also believe that one out of five returning Obama voters defected to Kirk but only 1 out of 33 returning McCain voters defected to Giannoulias.

You must also believe that just 61% of Obama voters returned to vote while 70% of McCain voters did.

This is an analysis of the 2010 Pennsylvania senate race in which Toomey (Rep) defeated Sestak (Dem) by 80,000 recorded votes (51-49%). The True Vote analysis indicates that Sestak had at least a 51.5% vote share and 120,000 vote margin.

The unadjusted exit poll (2664 respondents) was a 50/50 tie: Sestak had 1331; Toomey had 1333. The Final exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote: Sestak 49.1%; Toomey 50.9%.

The Final indicated that 49% of the votes recorded in 2010 were cast by returning Obama voters and 45% by returning McCain voters, a 4 percent margin. But Obama won the PA True Vote by 15%. Therefore it is logical to assume that there were many more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 PA exit poll. If this is the case, then it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Sestak won the election.

As in the Wisconsin exit poll, vote shares were not available for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters. However, the exit poll indicated that returning third-party 2008 voters and new voters each represented 3% (119,000) of the total 2010 vote. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It is also impossible that returning third-party voters comprised 119,000 of the 2010 vote. There were only 81,000 third-party voters in 2008 and approximately 55,000 returned to vote in 2010. Therefore, the returning third-party mix was changed to 1.4%. New (DNV) voters increased from 3% to 5.2%.

The Final 2010 PA Exit Poll is eerily similar to that of Wisconsin. Apparently, the exit pollsters forgot to adjust “When Decided” to match the recorded vote. Feingold and Sestak each won the “When Decided” category. Toomey needed 53% of the 27% of voters who decided in the last week. He had just 42%.

The Democrats led in Party ID by 40-37% over the Republicans. Democrats virtually always win when they have a 3% edge in Party-ID.

In the “Voted in 2008” category, Sestak led the 94% who were returning Obama and McCain voters. Vote shares for returning 3rd-party and new voters are not available.

The 2008 Presidential True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won nationally by 58-40% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded). Forcing the State and National Exit Polls to match the recorded vote is standard operating procedure.

In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election. The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote. The Final is forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the returning voter mix and/or the vote shares. In 2004 adjusting the mix was not sufficient to match the recorded vote, so the exit pollsters had to increase Bush vote shares as well.

This is a True Vote analysis of the 2010 Wisconsin senate race. The Final 2010 Wisconsin Senate Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%). Forcing a match to the recorded vote is standard operating procedure on the part of the exit pollsters. In order to force a match in 2004 and 2008, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote, In 2010, the Final WI senate exit poll was again forced to match the recorded vote. In the Final, the exit pollsters indicate that 49% of the 2010 recorded vote were cast by returning Obama voters and 43% by returning McCain voters. The 49/43 ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% recorded vote margin. But the 2008 True Vote analysis indicates that Obama won by 57-41% – a 22 million vote margin (only 9.5 million was recorded).

It is logical to assume that there were more returning Obama voters than indicated in the 2010 WI exit poll. Therefore, the returning Obama/McCain share (mix) of the 2010 vote was changed from 49/43% to 52/40%. If this was indeed the case, then election fraud may very well have cost Feingold the election. The True Vote analysis indicates that Feingold had an approximate 50.6% vote share and 50,000 vote margin.

Vote shares were not provided for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters in the WI Exit Poll. These categories represented 3% and 5% of the total 2010 recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the recorded vote, Johnson must have won these voters by approximately 61-35% and 64-36%, respectively. This is a RED FLAG! Obama won third party voters by 66-20% over McCain. It strains credulity that returning third party voters would switch from Obama to Johnson in those amounts.

Note the SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS which displays vote shares for various returning voter mix assumptions (scenarios) and Feingold’s share of returning McCain voters. Although the Final Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, the Base Case True Vote scenario assumes the Final Exit Poll vote shares; only the returning voter mix was adjusted. However, it is likely that the vote shares were also adjusted to force the match.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes equal 70% turnout of living Obama and McCain voters.and a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters and there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was a clear winner assuming that the percentage turnout of returning Obama voters was equal or greater than that of McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. This is extremely implausible. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

A comparison of the exit poll demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields some interesting results:

When Decided: Feingold was the winner in this category.
1) Feingold led the 83% of voters who decided a week prior to the election by 51-48%, winning by 50.7-48.5%.
2) He led the 68% of voters who decided a month prior by 51-48%, winning by 50.4-49.0%.
3) He led the 69% of voters who decided a month prior to the election by 51-48%. Vote shares for the last week were not available. Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the last week (17% of the total) to match his recorded share.

Gender: In 2004, females comprised 53% of total voters; in 2010, they were just 50%.
Age: Voters over 45 comprised 50% of the electorate in 2004 and 62% in 2010.

Party ID: In 2004, Democrats were 35% and GOP 38%. In 2010, Democrats were 37%, the GOP 36%.

Region: Milwaukee Cty had 16% of voters in 2004 and 2010. Feingold had 68% in 2004;61% in 2010.
Southeast (incl Waukesha):19% of voters in 2004;27% in 2010. Feingold: 39% in 2004; 34% in 2010.

Assuming that Feingold had just 88% of returning Obama voters (65% turnout) and Johnson had 93% of returning McCain voters (75% turnout), Feingold was still a 50.0-48.8% winner with a 26,000 vote margin.

I have included a comparable Oregon analysis. Oregon Senator Wyden, a popular progressive Democrat like Feingold, was re-elected with a 57% share, closely matching Obama’s 56.8% OR share.

There was no reason to suspect that the 2010 midterms would be any different than prior elections. The pundits typical reaction promotes the conventional wisdom that it was a GOP blowout of epic proportions – even bigger than 1994. The party in power nearly always loses seats in the midterms. But the true number is unknown. The unconventional wisdom is that in every election the Democrats do significantly better than the recorded vote indicates. The 2010 midterms were no exception. The GOP won the House big-time. The Democrats held on to the Senate.

We had a hint of what was coming in 2010. In the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat, Martha Coakley won the hand-counted districts but lost the machine counts. She conceded long before the votes were counted.

In the South Carolina Democratic primary, Vic Rawl easily won the hand-counted paper ballots, but unknown Alvin Green won the machine counts. In a pitiful post-election “investigation”, Green was the chosen candidate despite the overwhelming evidence of fraud.

Given what we know about election fraud, what does the combination of pre-election registered and likely voter polls, preliminary and final exit polls and recorded vote data indicate? Well, we still have unverifiable elections and a strange reluctance of the Democratic leadership to do anything about it.

This post-election analysis utilizes final likely and registered state and national pre-election polls along with preliminary and final exit polls. The 2010 Midterms Election Forecast Model projected that the final LV pre-election polls would closely match the recorded vote – and they did.

Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote. Table 3 shows the late adjustments made to the exit polls – with no additional respondents. On the other hand, pre-election RV polls have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. At least they did until 2008, when the National Election Pool (the consortium of six mainstream media giants which pay the exit pollsters) decided that it was bad for business to release the pristine data.

As usual, the pundits are quoting the final exit polls as gospel. They warn Obama that he must move to the center – as if he has been part of the “professional left” all along. They never question the official results. That’s why they’re pundits: they know that they are paid to present the recorded vote as if it represented the will of the voters. So they avoid the subject of systemic election fraud – otherwise they might find themselves out of a job.

Early Votinghttp://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM176_101027_early_vote_memo.pdf
Early voting statistics showed that Democrats were winning in key races. The Democratic National Committee collected early vote data across the country, and in 11 key states, Democrats cast more ballots than Republicans. In early voting Democrats outpaced the Republicans in NV, IA, CA, WI, WA, IL and WV.

The Republican ‘surge’/’wave’ dud not materialize in the early vote. In early results of distinct vote history levels (mid-term voters / presidential-year only voters), Democratic early voting was comparable, and often higher, than Republican voting. In many key districts, Democrats outpaced Republicans both in raw ballots cast and participation rates.

National (Generic) Exit Poll vs. Pre-election polls
As expected, the final 2010 National Exit Poll margin discrepancy from the average of 30 pre-election Generic LV polls was a near-perfect -0.62.

When the returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote, the discrepancy from the 19 pre-election RV poll average was an even lower 0.07%.

State exit polls vs. Pre-election polls
The final state exit poll (i.e. recorded vote) discrepancy from the average LV poll was 1.52%.

When the returning voter mix was set to the 2008 recorded vote, the discrepancy from the RV poll average was an even lower 0.83%.

It was expected that the Democrats were going to lose seats in the Senate and House. They were surely going to lose in Arkansas. They did. They were expected to hold on to CA, WA, WV, NY, DE and OR. And they did. The IL, NV, PA, CO and WI elections were expected to be close. And they were. The Democrats won NV and CO.

But they lost WI, IL and PA. Or did they? Oregon could hold the answer.

Oregon was the only “battleground” state in which Kerry improved his share over Gore. Kerry’s 51.4% share closely matched the unadjusted exit poll 52.0% aggregate. Since Bush won the recorded vote with 50.7-48.3%, Kerry did 3.1% better in Oregon than he did nationally. Oregon gave Obama 56.7% in 2008 (3.8% more than his 52.9% recorded national share).

What accounts for Oregon’s unique voting record? In 1992 it had the highest exit poll discrepancy in the nation (13.6%. In 1996, 10% of votes cast were uncounted. In 1998 Oregon decided to implement voting by mail – and mandated hand-counts of paper ballots in randomly-selected counties to prevent election fraud.

The evidence (statistical and documented) is overwhelming: the 2004 election was stolen. Oregon’s recorded vote confirms it. The Final 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that there was a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters and 450% turnout of third-party voters. According to the Final, there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. Therefore, Obama must have done much better than his recorded 52.9% share. Oregon had it right in 2008, just like it did in 2004.

The 2010 Oregon senate race was never in question. Wyden led by a consistent 20% in the pre-election LV polls. Wyden had a 57% recorded share – just as the polls predicted, matching Obama’s Oregon share in 2008. But if Oregon is a measure for the National electorate, how do we explain the GOP 52-47% Generic margin in 2010?

Once again, just like in 2004, the Battleground states shifted to the GOP – except for Oregon. Was it because Oregon is the only state which mandates random full hand-counts of the optically-scanned paper ballots to check the central tabulator machine-counts?

Washington now votes virtually 100% by mail. Colorado and California also had an extensive percentage of mail-in paper and absentee ballots. Is it a coincidence that in these states, the Democrats won by margins equivalent to Obama’s in 2008? Both NY senate elections exceeded Obama’s recorded share by 3-4%.

In 2004, California and New York gave Bush approximately 2.3 million of his 3.0 million vote “mandate”. In the 2010 midterms, unlike 2004, there no incentive for the GOP to pad the vote in strong Democratic states.

The Democrats lost close races in WI, IL and PA which had the following:
1) Unverifiable DRE’s
2) No mandated random hand-counts of optical scanned ballots.
3) Progressive candidates (Feingold, Sestak, Giannoulias)
4) The GOP led the final LV polls
5) Democrats tied or led the final RV polls
6) There was a late exit poll shift to the GOP

The Democrats won in states that had 100% paper ballots (OR, WA) with mandated random hand recounts or encouraged vote by mail (CO, CA). WI, PA and IL vote primarily by machine. The GOP won all three.

The tables tell the story. In the exit polls, we see changes made to the return voter mix and vote share as the polls are adjusted to match the changing vote count in real time – with no change in the number of respondents. Of course, this is standard operating procedure. Who cares if the central tabulators are being hacked in real-time?

CNN/Time provided RV and LV polling data for 18 Senate races (Table 1). Note that RV polls were not listed in the realclearpolitics.com poll averages. The Democrats led the RV polls in 11 states. They led the LV polls in 8 states (including the WV tie). They won 9. Illinois and Pennsylvania flipped from the Democrats in the RV polls to the GOP.

The average GOP 1.2% LV poll margin exceeded the RV average by 6.3%.
The average GOP LV margin exceeded the recorded average by 1.6%.
The average GOP recorded margin exceeded the RV average by 4.6%

Competitive states: 18 Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote (Table 2)
The average GOP 4.2% recorded margin exceeded the average exit poll margin by 2.9%.
The average GOP 6.3% LV poll margin exceeded the average recorded margin by 2.1%.